I’m sorry-but it just sounds like the Berlin Wall-families separated, no REAL solution, just a bandaid.
Guinastasia, I quote from the article in the OP:
[emphasis mine]
Admittedly, evacuating the entire Israeli portion of the population out of hundreds of square miles of territory, where they’ve been putting down roots for 35 years, isn’t exactly an easy operation. But if they can accomplish it, there would be no families separated.
tracer,
There will continue to elements that will be satisfied with nothing less than the elimination of Israel, with nothing less than the “return” of all the land to its “rightful owners”, and thus will never be satisfied. Elements who are so used to violence as way of life that they would continue out of inertia alone. Remember that until recent years such was the stated goal of the PLO and not long before that of many Arab governments. Many informed Israelis (Barak inclusive) still believe that such is the unstated long term goal of Arafat and the PA in general to this day. (There aint a lotta trust around those parts right now.) Realize also that any fence will not likely be a border that gives everything that the PA says that it wants and they will never get everything they say they want via negotiation (that wouldn’t be negotiating, would it? To not give on some things that you want.). And that without the economic partnering with Israel that only a true settlement would bring, that extreme poverty will continue in the West Bank and thus desperation would persist. Perhaps even increase. So, yes, there would continue to be terror attacks; fewer would succeed, but they’d continue.
Also, I think that Guin is talking about Arab families … 20% (I think that’s the number) of Israel proper is Arab with Israeli citizenship. To Guin (it is “her” isn’t it?) I again respond, a fence is not a long term solution; it is an apparently requisite preamble to a long term solution in which the fence can come back down. But we are a long long way away from such a day.
Stop the bleeding, then try to repair the wound.
I’m not so sure about that.
But, hijack aside, I’d say a fence is the way to go.
Yes. But similarily, there will be elements that will be satisfied with nothing less than Eretz Israel, with nothing less than the expelling of the whole Palestinian population, with nothing les than the “return” of all the god-given land to its “righful owners” and thus will never be satisfied.
Yes, and they’ll continue to try to win votes and influence policies. A showdown between those ultra-orthodox/far right groups and the secular mainstream is going to occur in Israel sometime or another. I find Sharon’s recent “screw you” to Shas to be a very good prognostic indicator. Some may want to stay in settlements within a Palestinian entity and will resist evacuation. If they stay then one hopes that they will given the same rights that the Arab minorities are given within Israel. But they are not as often among those blowing up schoolbuses. And are irrelevant to the question asked.
I lean towards favoring a ‘wall’ solution, if a reasonable solution to Jerusalem can be found.
This is not just for the good of Israelis, but for Palestinians. The reason I believe so is that polls in Israel show a population that is on the brink of a very violent episode - a poll conducted last week showed that over 85% of all Israelis believe that they, or their immediate families, will be victims of a terrorist attack. That’s a picture of a population that is close to the breaking point.
IMO, Israel is only one terrorist escalation away from a very violent reprisal. And all evidence shows that the terrorist groups involved are trying to increase the lethality of their attacks dramatically. They are using far more powerful explosives, and recently attempted a cyanide attack. The first time an attack kills hundreds or thousands of Israelis, Palestine will be finished as a potential state. I wouldn’t even be surprised if we saw a forced expulsion of Palestinians into Jordan or some other area, whether they were welcome or not. Certainly a total destruction of the PA and a complete demilitarization of Gaza and the West bank would occur, with heavy casualties.
And it’s only going to take one or two more large terrorist attacks before Israel decides to invade Gaza, and apparently that will be a very bloody battle. The Palestinians have heavily armed and booby-trapped the place. Expect casualties in the hundreds on both sides if Israel moves into Gaza.
I wish I could see a peaceful alternative. I would love to see a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state living next to Israel. I would like to see such a state be wealthy, productive, and an active trading partner with Israel. I’d like to see Palestinians and Israelis move freely between the two countries. And I think most Israelis would dream of having such a situation. A friendly Palestine could be an Israeli ally and a buffer between Israel and less friendly Arab states. It would be a great thing for the Palestinians and Israelis, and the rest of the world.
But it’s not going to happen until the Palestinians undergo a sea change in attitude, and the ball is firmly in the their court. They need to realize that they are not winning this war - in fact, every insane terrorist bombing pushes them closer to an incredibly violent and destructive end to their dreams. A fence may be the buffer needed to keep things relatively calm until a better solution is worked out.
I would like to echo Dseid’s and Sam’s analysis. A wall, so long as it is not used to unilaterly annex areas that the I. government knows will enrage those P.s who it can eventually deal with, may go a long way to cooling things off. Which would be good for both sides.
Israeli society is being pushed in ugly directions and P society will not be able to stabilize such that there can be productive negotiations so long as Israel is provoked into incursions.
Now, I do disagree with Sam that the ‘ball is in the Palestinian court’ – a careful set of actions on both sides is needed, e.g. if the Wall solution becomes a mode of unilateral and unacceptable annexations (beyond a few detials on making the border more sensible in a few spots) then it might very well backfire.
<< Are you saying big fence around America is the answer? This idea sounds silly. >>
Well, it’s called the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, and it worked as a fence pretty well for two centuries. Actually, still works pretty well as a fence for some things – we’re not too worried about a terrorist from Iraq putting a nuclear weapon in the trunk of his car and driving it to New York.
Interestingly, enough, Collounsbury, we agree on the notion that a fence might be effective as a starting point.
Kinda scary that there is such a broad consensus for what is admittedly such a lousy solution. That’s what happens when all the other options are so much more awful. Or proven to be undoable.
Collounsbury: By saying that “The ball is in the Palestinian’s Court” I didn’t mean to suggest that there was nothing Israel could or should do. But rather, that Israel’s responses to the Palestinians will be largely dictated by what the Palestinians do. If there were no more terrorist attacks, there would be no more incursions. Israel is in a reactive mode right now, so the initiative is the Palestinians’ to take.
But I have to believe the situation is damned near hopeless, which is the only reason I’d advocate a fence. Latest polls show that the Saudi peace proposal is heavily opposed by Israelis AND Palestinians. Specifically, over 80% of Israelis currently oppose re-drawing the 1967 borders. 94% oppose any plan that includes a full right of return for Palestinians. On the other hand, something like 70% of Palestinians oppose any plan for statehood that does not include the right of return.
How do you break that deadlock? I have no idea. So all you can do is try to keep them from killing each other until the political landscape changes.
Sam: Those numbers are actually encouraging in a twisted way. This will be long and rambling. Random thoughts and all.
A peace plan will take serious, painful compromises. Redrawing the 1967 borders (with some amendments and probably close to 1:1 land exchanges) and some internationalization or compromise on Jerusalem is a pretty fair compromise that most Israelis could probably be forced to accept. It won’t be popular, but if it is coupled to painful compromises on the Palestinian side – a partial settlement on refugees with some land and lots of financial recompensation – it will be pushed through. Sam’s numbers show that this is about equally painful for both sides, and that is good. If both sides assure the other side that they are working in good faith, then each side is not giving away something for nothing.
IMHO we’ve already seen nearly this when the situation was more stable. Despite what the naysayers holler, there was almost a compromise hammered out at Camp David II and Taba. The problem was that Arafat was still being bullied by militant segments, and could never have pushed such an unpopular thing through. Barak may have just barely been able to if Arafat could do likewise. But Arafat was not prepared/able (or just plain refused) to invest the political capitol necessary to build a final status agreement: he couldn’t put his chips down on the table to even ante up to Barak’s proposal.
Something needs to happen to create an environment permissive to painful compromises on the Palestinian side. Once they can enter a negotiation table in good faith, a final status agreement is basically already well started (the Taba negotiation or the original uncorrupted Saudi proposal). By erecting a fence, by unilaterally separating, Israel is hopefully allowing the Palestinians to create this environment.
The PA security force was supposed to do that, to clamp down on militants, to allow a moderate Palestinian movement to emerge, so that unpopular peace proposals could be forced to go through. The Israelis are trying to do what the PA security hasn’t with Operation Defensive Shield and the current “pinpoint” operations. Obviously since they aren’t on the streets, they don’t know the people, etc, they can’t be nearly as effective as a PA police force.
So, Israel pursues a contingency plan in the absence of a dependable PA security force. The obvious solution IMHO has always been separation until this can be accomplished. Sure, it will hurt both countries in the short term. Sure, it costs a bunch of money. Sure, it keeps Palestinians in abject poverty and Israelis hurting for labor. It is the mosquito netting to go along with the bug spray. And, take away that big terrorism justifier – the “evil occupation” – and any pervading violence is no longer justified as “freedom fighting.” There ceases to be an excuse for these guys to run around free – they have no justifiable political agenda once they are pursuing complete destruction of Israel, and if Arafat continues to embrace or even tolerate them, he will be lowered to the ranks of Saddam Hussein.
Let the Palestinians show that they can work out their own problems, and the Israelis will believe that they can get a meaningful compromise out of them. Barak taught the Israelis a hard lesson – following a Western sense of justice means nothing in the region if you end up not “saving face.” Sharon or any other Israeli leader isn’t going to lose face on a deal, and this means tit for tat. 1967 borders for dropping the right of return. Resumption of trade for meaningful outlaw of Hamas and IJ. International Jerusalem for complete recognition of Israel’s right of existence and dropping future demands of territory. Not Arafat double-speak – that has already been tried and has failed every time since 1992 (although I won’t place the entire onus on Arafat).
If this sounds like a pipe dream, I will just remind everyone that it wasn’t so different throughout the 1990s. Palestinians were quite moderate and peaceful. 10 years of thumb-twiddling by Arafat and successive Likud->Labor->Likud Israeli governments squandered that complacency to the extent that created a ripe environment for intifada. Measures need to be taken not only to get back to this baseline, but to reform the PA and to give the Palestinian people a vision of what they are working for by freezing settlement expansion and building a fence.